Thus you have four kinds [of material] together in each and every thread. . . Explanation: all were entwined [into one thick thread], for it is written, “Twined.” The ו of ותכלת has the meaning of ב . Thus the verse conveys: “Fine linen entwined with greenish blue, dark red, and crimson.” It is like the ו in ה' שלחני ורוחו (Yeshaya 48:16), which means: “Hashem sent me with His spirit.” Similarly, ה' וכלי זעמו (ibid. 13:5), which means: “Hashem with His weapons of wrath.”

Which is done through needlework. . . In which the image appearing on both sides is the same.

A lion on this side and an eagle on the other side. Re”m writes: “According to [what Rashi wrote on Yoma 72b], it does not mean specifically ‘a lion on this side and an eagle on the other side.’ It just means various images. . . However, I do not know why the verse calls these various images ‘cherubim,’ if ‘cherubim’ means images of children. Onkelos translates כרובים as כרביא , [‘like children,’] and so Rashi wrote on 25:28, and so it says in Chagigah 13b.” But it seems to me that the mishkon’s drapes had only the four images of the Heavenly Chariot: man, lion, ox and eagle, [all of which are referred to as “cherubim”; see Yechezkel 10:20.] Rashi meant specifically “a lion on this side and an eagle on the other side.”

The loops of one drape [should] line up exactly opposite the loops of the other. . . The loops of one are lined up with the loops of the other, and the clasps join them together.

Result in the paroches being a distance of one amoh westward from the clasps. . . Explanation: the paroches divided the Holy of Holies from the [remainder of the] Ohel Moed, and stood ten amohs from the west side, equal to the length of the Holy of Holies. Thus, the distance from the paroches to the [Ohel Moed’s entrance in the] east was twenty amohs. Now, if the drapes covered the one-amoh width of the eastern pillars, and then covered another twenty amohs before reaching the paroches of the Holy of Holies, then the paroches would be one amoh distant from the clasps. This is because the clasps were in the middle of the [two groups of] drapes, on the [inner] edge of each twenty-amohs-wide group. The drapes would have to cover twenty-one amohs [before reaching the paroches].

Half of its width hung. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written (v. 12), “Half of the extra drape shall overlap the back of the mishkon.” Accordingly, the other half overlapped the front of the mishkon.

Of the planks that remained uncovered. Rashi does not mean that the uncovered area consisted specifically of the planks. [That cannot be,] because one amoh [of the planks] was inserted into the sockets. Rather, the two uncovered amohs consisted of an amoh of the planks and an amoh of the sockets. Furthermore, only according to the Beraisa in Maseches Midos were there two amohs left uncovered. But according to the Gemara in Maseches Shabbos, [the first set of drapes] covered nine amohs at the back of the mishkon, and only the amoh of the sockets was uncovered. All views agree that the drapes of goats’ hair covered the sockets also. [Even] according to Maseches Shabbos, one amoh of the [goats’ hair] drapes must have covered an amoh of the [width of the] pillars [at the entrance], and two amohs were folded down over the screen of the entrance of the tent. Alternatively: one amoh folded down over the screen, and one amoh overlapped behind the mishkon, lying on the ground.

For the roof made of the drapes of goats’ hairs. . . I.e., the covering went over the roof but not over the sides. [Rashi says this] because even [the covering of] the eleven drapes of goats’ hair is called אהל (tent), for it is written (v. 7): “Make drapes of goats’ hair for a אהל over the mishkon.”

From those that were prepared and designated. . . Our verse refers to the cedar trees as “planks” because they were designated from the very beginning to become planks. “The planks” means “the [designated] cedars.”

Were cut out on three of their sides. . . 1. The side [of the mishkon’s] interior. 2. The side [of the mishkon’s] exterior. [These are both sides] of the planks’ thickness. 3. The side of the planks’ width, [facing the adjacent plank. Rashi is not counting the hollow between the pegs].

Their cut away sections should be exactly alike. . . This refers to the three cut sides of the pegs [see previous entry], without [additional] cuts being made in the planks [themselves, as the Ramban suggests]. Therefore it is the pegs, not the planks, that are “parallel to each other.”

The other is pulled more to the outside in relation to the thickness of the plank. . . For if so, the planks would not line up straight but would stand slanted.

Against the amoh thickness of the northern and southern mishkon planks. [Rashi knows this] because [the dimensions of the mishkon] is derived from the Beis Hamikdash, whose width (twenty amohs) was one-third of its length (sixty amohs). So too with the mishkon: its width [ten amohs] was one-third of its length (thirty amohs).

The northern and southern sides. . . This is different from the preceding. The other planks were cut away in their width, for beauty’s sake, i.e., so that the sides of the sockets and of the sides of the planks would be even, and not jut out past one another. But for these [corner] planks it was an absolute necessity that they be [cut away] in their width, because it says: “Coupled together on the bottom.” (Re”m)

Whether they were fixed. . . I.e., whether the rings were fixed to one of the planks which were joined together by the rings. Nachalas Yaakov writes: This is as opposed to the rings into which the bars were inserted, as mentioned in v. 29. Those rings were fixed, as it says in Shabbos 98.

The top of the corner plank. . . Explanation: the one-amoh [thickness of] the last plank [on the northern wall] meets up with the width of the [western wall’s] northernmost plank. And so on the south. Therefore, the ring placed in the thickness of the last plank on the northern wall was inserted into the top of the [northern] corner plank of the western side. And similarly for the southern wall.

The plank at the end of the northern side. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written יהיה , which is an extra word. Perforce, the phrase of “So must it be done with the two planks” is a separate phrase, and teaches: just as all the planks have two cut-outs on top, for the rings, so shall it be with the two end planks — i.e., the end plank of the northern side, and the adjacent plank of the western side. Similarly, the phrase of “Which are at the corners” is a separate phrase, and teaches that the same is done with both corners: the north-west corner, and the south-west corner. In this manner, all the planks are joined with each other.

The planks were cut out at the bottom. . . Explanation: The bottom of the plank was cut out in a way that left intact one-quarter of the [width of the] plank on one side, and the same on the other side. And the cut-out part in the middle was one-half of the [width of the] plank. [Then, the one-quarters on the sides were partially cut out, to form the pegs]. For otherwise, [if Rashi meant to cut away one-quarter of the plank on each side, and also to cut away one-half in the middle,] nothing would remain from the width of the plank. And what then does Rashi mean by, “Thereby forming two pegs that were similar to two legs”?

Each section being one fourth. . . [You might ask:] Why did Rashi divide it into three sections, [and say, “Placed at three equidistant places”]? He could have divided it [more simply]: from the top of the plank to the top bar is like from the top bar to the middle bar. And from the middle bar to the bottom bar is like from the bottom bar to the bottom of the plank — thus dividing it into four sections. [The answer is:] Both sides of the top bar are equal. From the top of the plank to the top bar is like from top bar to the middle bar. Therefore, these sides are considered as belonging to the top bar. Similarly, both sides of the middle bar are equal. From the middle bar to the top bar is like from the middle bar to the bottom bar. Therefore, these sides are considered as belonging to the middle bar. Similarly, the sides of the bottom bar are equal. From it to the middle bar is like from it to the bottom. Therefore, they are considered as belonging to it. That is why Rashi divided into three sections and not four. (Re”m)

He fastened them near the rings. . . Explanation: the cane sections did not cover the rings, but reached from ring to ring. Therefore, each plank needed one [set of] half canes [above and below], since each plank had two rings.

After it is completed, erect it! I.e., this is a command to Moshe to erect the mishkon himself. [Alternatively,] the Nachalas Yaakov (citing Sifri) says it means: When all the work of the mishkon and all its vessels is completed, erect it at one time. Do not erect each part as it is completed, rather, [erect it] all at once.

Before this. . . Meaning: before it is erected. Hashem had not yet shown it to Moshe, so properly speaking it should say, “. . .According to its rules as will be shown to you on the mountain.” Nevertheless, the verse is in the past tense form because when the mishkon will be erected, He will already have shown it to Moshe on the mountain.

The paroches was ten amohs long. . . Re”m writes: I do not know why Rashi places its length along the mishkon’s width, and its width along the mishkon’s height. Why not the other way around, with its width to the mishkon’s width, and its length to [the planks’] length? Furthermore, how can the paroches have a long side and a wide side, when it is square? I do not know the place [of Rashi’s source]. Nachalas Yaakov answers: It seems to me that the long side of the images on the paroches was along the mishkon’s width. The direction of the images determines what Rashi calls “length.”